The Tao of Chao Podcast
The Tao of Chao Podcast
Power, AI, and Morality with Brian Wong
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
What does power look like in an age defined by artificial intelligence, geopolitical rivalry, and rapid technological acceleration?
In Episode 35 of the Tao of Chao Podcast, Philip Chao welcomes Brian Wong for a compelling discussion on how AI is reshaping global order, the responsibilities of those who wield influence, and the moral frameworks needed to make sound decisions in complex systems.
Key insights include:
• How AI alters power structures between nations, institutions, and individuals
• Why moral clarity matters more than ever in high-stakes environments
• The benefits and risks of adopting AI at scale
• How leaders can balance innovation with responsibility and restraint
• Why humility, reflection, and well-defined frameworks improve decision-making
• Where geopolitical competition is headed — and what it means for markets
This episode offers a grounded, human-centered exploration of the forces shaping our future and the ethical considerations that must guide our path forward.
👓 Learn more about our HOST
Philip Chao
Website: https://philipchao.us
Follow Philip on LinkedIn
DISCLOSURE: Views expressed in the Tao of Chao podcasts are individual opinions and they do not represent the employers of each guest or the firm with which each guest is associated. Our podcasts are for educational and informational purposes only and should not be deemed or viewed as investment advice or recommendations. Please consult your personal financial advisor, investment expert, or investment fiduciary before taking any actions about your plan and investments.
Normalize discussions about historical injustices. Normalize and create. Therefore, the space for folks to say, here's my experience. Here's my understanding. Here's what happened to my parents, my grandparents, my great grandparents. Normalize such discourse such that folks don't feel like, oh, they're going against the grain. Oh, folks don't want to listen to us. Let’s shut off, you know? But instead they think, okay, you know what? There's a space and there's a room for me to actually speak up and speak out about our experiences and also our reflections upon the moral significance of our ancestors, our predecessors experiences. That, I think, is more than sufficient. Welcome to the town of Channel August, where we will try to find balance and provide a clearer path forward in this uncertain. Brian Wong is an assistant professor in philosophy at Hong Kong University. He's a political theorist and geo political strategist whose research examines authoritarian regimes and citizens political and moral responsibilities. Colonial and historical injustices, and the interaction between domestic politics and foreign policy of states in East Asia, especially China. Brian is a Hong Kong Rhodes Scholar, 2020. He obtained his daughter in philosophy, in politics, Master in Philosophy and Political Theory with distinction, and a master in philosophy, politics and Economics, First Class, all from the University of Oxford. He co-founded and advises Oxford Political Review, a publication aspiring to bridge the theory and practice gap. Brian coached Eton College's debate program for four years, and was the first ever Hong Kong born Chinese to have advance to the open semifinals of the World Universities Debating Championships in 2020. It was my great pleasure. Here is Brian. So Brian, thank you and welcome once again. I've enjoyed the last conversation so much that, I been longing for us to spend more time. We are certainly oceans apart. And thank you, for for joining me this morning. And I believe you mentioned that you are in Singapore, not in Hong Kong today. That's right. That's for for for for a variety of things. So, Brian, I got the wonderful news that you wrote a new book. I must say that you are so prolific that you are. I think you are writing another book. As far as I can tell, a little little birds came in and flew by my ears and told me that you're writing another book, and you probably have one more book in your mind that you're ready to to to to write again, I'm sure. So that's that's wonderful. I know it's a lot of efforts, to, to write a book. And how many books have you written so far already? Or at least edited and so on. I know you, you did one on bricks as well. You're very tight, Philip. Well, I've published, two Chinese compendium of my writing starts now, and also with some interviews conducted in English. But these those book came out in 2021 and 2023. So this year I've published my first English monograph, Moral Debt Defending a New Kind to Reparative Justice, as well as an edge volume on bricks and the Future of Bricks. If there is, in fact one, as well as, you know, books due to come out in approximately a month's time or so at the end of October, concerning citizens responsibilities living under authoritarian regimes, which I find very exciting topic to be working on. One of your specialties, I believe. That's right. That's that's one of the areas I focus on in my investigation and research. And finally, there's also, a book on the ethics of geopolitics of AI. So, long story short, got around. Oh. So I will have had, I think, six books by, say, Q1 2026. Not to be interesting. What is the interesting? If we train eyes to think ethically so it can self-control. That would be interesting wouldn't it? Right. But a question is what is ethically mean ethically? For whom? Ethically relative to what? And it's and most importantly we we humans diverge over what ethical entails, right? What being ethical is, what being ethical isn't. We can't agree amongst ourselves. So what can we do? Or what should we do? And accounting for such moral divergence and also divergence in first order and second order, at least when training large language models? That is an unresolved question that I find fascinating as well. Yes, well, and diversity makes this world more interesting. If we all agree, we'll just go to sleep and there's nothing left to say. I wish there were more folks that agreed with that statement. Especially in your part of the world. Why, Fred? Okay, so I passed diversity. I think if you look at the animal kingdom, you look at the plants, you look at all that, it is such an important, component of our very humankind and our existence. And we may not like it with one's or the right to disagree strongly and vehemently with one's rivals, with one's interlocutors. That is, in my view, an innate part of the social experience of humanity to construct a society where dissent and disagreement can run rampant, as opposed to one where, you know only one version of dogmatic truth is promulgated and adopted by all. I, I have learned, over the last, I think I met you the beginning this year, in January when I was in Hong Kong. I have learned never debate with you because I will lose, you know, your two part, the two sides facing. I have no need to debate with you, because I agree. And I think that, one of the one of the jokes that I have, that's a much better response. And I'm just getting one of many, I think I would say to myself, as if I wake up every morning and everywhere I go, I meet more. Philip Chao how boring a life it's going to be. And it is. That exact sentiment is about diversity. Is is really learning and really looking at itself and say we don't know everything. And it is that excitement is to have a different opinion. Yeah, absolutely. But let's not go the intellectual aspect of our discussion quite that quickly. But I, I was really, excited to to see the title of your book, about moral and debt. Moral has to do with morality. That is something owed to somebody else. And the combination of the two got me very much interested in learning. And I must say, I have cheated in two ways. One is I have spoken with you, prior to today, a little bit, so I know a little bit more. And I have also cheated because I watched you, yesterday on, a On roads, trust podcast, which gave away a lot of it. But, I like to have the, personal privilege, which you affords me, to ask the question for, for poor people who are going to watch this particular, podcast. So thank you. First of all, Brian, for for your generosity of time, I know you're very, very busy person and much on demand. More importantly is, I think, to understand, what drove you, the the topic itself is fascinating, but what drove you to compel to express your your thinking and your philosophy? I know some of it is personal, some of it just something that you have thought a great deal, I'm sure about. Could you enlighten the, all of us on on your motivation, and directionality of your writing? Well, thanks, Phillip, and props here to be useful to, you know, share a personal story and then maybe move on to explaining why academic interest and subject matter as well. My grandmother was born in Hong Kong. Pre-World War two, Hong Kong into a relatively comfortable upper middle class family. Her parents, well, her dad went to and divorced. Her mom was also well-educated for a time, and both spoke, to varying degrees, English. And it was a pretty wholesome family life, where they would nest in the the West Mid-Levels were actually more precisely a stretch of land between, back then the this, the, the equivalent okay of the dockyards and so on and so on. And of course, the, the quote unquote mid-levels where mid-levels and above where, you know, non-Chinese only. So why only more specifically? And that was why they were situated, you know, in this nice flat that's right around the corner when it came to Stanley Street, you know, along basically the Pottinger Street stretch or in Cantonese, we call that seven guy. And my grandmother was raised, yeah, for a young age, being told that she could go to and she would go to school and get married into a comfortable family and have lots of, you know, children and prosper and all that. And yet, of course, the invasion of Hong Kong in 1941 as a part of the, Japanese invasion of China, an atrocious, deeply dreadful campaign that left millions either killed or severely injured or abused or tortured or imprisoned in China. And in the context of Hong Kong, that was the battle for Hong Kong, which lasted for under a month's time, when, in the fall of Hong Kong, in hands or into the hands of the Japanese. By the end of 1941, with the surrender of or the surrendering of the colonial governor, Mark young. And so my grandmother's died. My great grandfather was taken captive and sent to Hainan to work as a grunt and as someone who never done, really, a single day of real labor in his life. He died. And my grandmother's mother was so distraught that she ended up crying herself to blindness, and she had to give away my grandmother for adoption by a neighboring neighbor, a couple in central, who then fled back into new territories and then eventually, sort of the deep hinterlands of canton, so to speak, subsequently bringing my grandmother with it. So that was really what sparked my fascination with historical injustice, the personal connection between my grandmother and a atrocities of war and the devastating impacts that war left not just on his her parents, but also herself. The starring memories that meant that she would be traumatized for the remainder of her life, despite her resilience and also eventual magnanimity over the past wrongdoings inflicted upon her family. And then, of course, you know, after the war, my grandmother got married and, so my, my father and my aunt were born, you know, into the generation, a generation that you could consider rather privileged in a sense that that was an era where, you know, hard work did pay off and hard work did generate its dividends. But they were also fairly underprivileged in a very substantive and acute sense, where they were quite literally, you know, not necessarily living in rags per se, but certainly living very modest, very modest and thrifty lives as well, as children of a working class family. Right. Which is where my grandmother ended up, seeing as basically half of the family was either decimated or lost their belongings and property during the war. And by the way, mind you, she came from a very large family, right? With over 40, I think it was 15 uns or uncles and two grandmothers and a grandfather. So she came from a very large and, you know, certainly upper middle class family. Not not sort of a, a struggling family per se, but didn't matter because the war basically took, you know, a vast majority of the wealth. And she was left, you know, navigating a very frightening and new order in a wake of the invasion. So, long story short, and the second half of the 20th century, Hong Kong's economy took off. And many folks who attribute that to British colonial policies. But it be, proactive non interventionism, which came in much later than folks actually suspect or thought it did. You know again, there's a mandela effect there or more fundamentally an immediate two decades post war reconstruction attempting to build the base for industrialization establishments. You know later on in that process of the ICAC reining in corruption, I'm sure you recall that, Philip, when you you were much younger and traveling through Hong Kong, were living in Hong Kong. Corruption ran rampant. Whereas, you know, the the institutionalization of anti-corruption enforcement under, again, of, you know, MacLehose basically saw to an end, of a lot of this sort of, you know, walked practices and frankly, the the denigration to the rule of law. I mean, the rule of law was constructed through a mixture of colonial administration intervention, but also the ingenious ness of the Hong Kong people, which then gave rise to the robust rule of law for which Hong Kong has been known for many decades and years as well. So obviously the colonial era left in its wake benefits right? Especially in the last 50 years or so. And yet, let's not gloss over the facts of racism, hierarchies of subjugation, of discrimination, assertions that for a very long while, folks like you and I, because of our skin color, we were not allowed to live in the peak or live atop the peak. And in the mid-levels. We were not allowed to own houses there or to live like, affluent upper classmen where there would always be, you know? And here I'm paraphrasing a brilliant analogy that was introduced by David Van Rae Brooke in Rather Lucy, a book called Indonesian Colonial and Post-colonial history and the struggle for independence, what he termed to be basically a sort of multi deck or a, you know, a multi deck ship, a cruise ship of sorts. We have three decks, you know, the first class deck, the second class deck and the third class that they the Koch equivalent. And to speak of that, of that liner. Right. And he basically said, you know that that the colonial period in Indonesia saw a hierarchy where you'd have the whites at the top, the mixed folks in the middle, and then the natives at the bottom, apart from, of course, the select segment who collaborate with the whites and then then promoted into the second sort of deck, right, so to speak. And yet, you know, upon the the transformation, okay, that took to in in Asia during World War two, what we then saw swiftly was a reverse of positional knowledge is where you had the Japanese and Japanese cronies and collaborators at the top, followed by the quote unquote, the locals, and finally the white Caucasian. So the reversal of positionality in that case speaks to, you know, the delicate ness of status under colonial and also occupation regimes. And the same could be said to some extent of Hong Kong that there was really, really a sense of rigidity and socioeconomic distributions and class distributions all the way up until perhaps the last two decades of British colonial rule. And yet grappling with this question of whether or not the rule was justified and justified, right or wrong, you know, these questions intrigued me as well, because on one hand, you could point to Hong Kong as purportedly benefiting, or at least significant portions of Hong Kong's population benefiting from colonialism in the second half of the 20th century. And you know, your other hand, how are we to reconcile that? I would have thought that colonialism was built on the back of exploitation, of unjust acquisition, of unjust, unequal treaties that the Chinese were compelled to sign. So this was another reason why I found moral debt, the concept of moral debt. So fascinating to explore and investigate, for. We often hear folks say, hey, you owe me something. You know, in Cantonese we say the human ego, the hunting tire. Right? So there's a little human, sentiment or human debt that you accrue towards me, and that's a literal translation that how can we interpret it through lenses of rigorous political theorization? That was a question I was intrigued by. And I also explains why I was drawn to as a political theorist by training as a philosopher, by training as well. The subject matter at hand. I'm sorry that took so long, but I hope that really gave us a good glimpse into the the context and the motivation for the book. So what is fascinating about this, story, unfortunately, is not unique, unfortunately, that there are worse than that and there are better than that, but there are around it's a matter of one standard deviation away from from your grandmother and your great grandparents, experience. And what is interesting is the intersection between, colonialism and aggression from a foreign nation. Those two both have moral debt, and we blend them together. One goes to the other. And also fascinating. As I look back and, on Chinese, at least contemporary Chinese has in the last hundred years or so, we think of Chinese really, values so much of stability, values, so much of making sure, that we don't have a whole. Luan. Luan is chaotic, you know, we we hate chaos, right? We want peace because of this recent 2 or 300 years of experience that traumatized us, shall we say, the entire population and its culture. I think it has moved, in an irreversible way for as long as our memory, until pass on, about how Chinese feels about lives, and what they are seeking and what they are willing to give up for stability, what they are willing to give up for peacefulness. And so it's fascinating. I don't know if you subscribe to that or not, that sometimes Chinese people think, well, China, you know, this end of history discussion. Well, China, if they get prosperous, they will become more democratic. They are not really looking for democracy in that traditional sense. They are looking for just leave us alone. Just let us be peaceful and live our lives almost that without them saying it. Maybe I'm overemphasizing it, but there's this feeling, by by the Chinese, in the Chinese culture today is we're willing to, to to to give up certain things for that tranquility. I think that's an interesting take. Although I would again be cautious of over generalizing about the Chinese population. There are folks in the ethnic Chinese community who see as desirable, not just instrumentally, but also intrinsically, that there's a greater degree of political liberalization, of democratic checks and balances and of transparency and governance that may resemble the sort of ideal type that the West used to stand for. Although, on the other hand, you know, for folks who say, well, look, you know, governance is ultimately what we want. Good governance, that is, democracy is a means to an end. We don't have to be democratic, but we have to have good governance institutions, of course, cultural rituals and and also frameworks. Right. And we often see in the Western discourses about China as the assertion that the purported lack of democracy would, in turn, purportedly entail terrible governance. Now, that's something I find empirically questionable. If you just look at what's been accomplished in China over the past many decades, and it also unduly reduces the conversation as to the kinds of reforms and changes that China still need to undertake, too. Just democracy alone, frankly. You know, I think, China, for it to politically evolve and grow requires more than just an enshrinement of checks and balances across all levels of government, which do matter, which does matter rather, but also same time and acknowledgment of, you know, China's becoming an increasingly global and international power. And yet, the way many of its officials and bureaucrats engaged in the world communicate with the world still reflects a deeply seated sort of sense of risk aversion and also inertia. How can we ensure that China actually speaks to the world, listens to the world, and becomes an important leading player in the world? Because I think, you know, despite all its hard technological advances and successes or its impressive achievements in poverty alleviation, China is not seen quite just yet. Even by countries that does a lot of business with and invests in and provides developmental aid towards. It's not seen as a player who is credible and also reliable as a pillar of global governance. So let's see what China is. Anyway, I digress, but I just thought I'd share that musing and I thought, well, one day I would like to actually have, I just don't necessarily think we should say things like, the Chinese just want to stability. I mean, yes, no, no, no. You know, hanging fruit. But it's not all there is to the Chinese like. No, no, of course, of course, no, no, I agree I think generalization always dangerous. But there is a feeling of peace and, you know, we're done with 100 years of that or we're done with a 200 years of that. We we just want to be, you know, tranquil, peaceful, non chaotic, let us live our lives. Were willing to sacrifice some liberty, for that guarantee. If it is doable. The promise, of stability. That is really what I'm thinking about. Yeah. And we can overplay that. Of course. And also you were talking about, and we'll exit that because that's not the topic of the day, but we're certainly, thinking about they are not mutually exclusive. And the way the West looks at, the of this or that, and you cannot be both and, and I think China is a bit of both sometimes and it's difficult to. Right. It's a, it's a spectrum is a dial is not an on off switch. Shall we say, you are much more eloquent in that area because you've spent a lot of time in, in really looking at, China and the world, and the BRICs and so on and so forth. So but that's another conversation for another day. And I would love to actually, you are an expert in, thinking about the position of Hong Kong in the world and how it, it is really a, you know, I have significant loyalty to Hong Kong because I was born there in the sense that, very proud to be a Hong Konger, by birth, and the resilience, of the Hong Kong people. And you see all the ebb and flows and able to keep coming back over and over and over. This speaks volumes, about about something about Hong Kong, which we certainly don't talk about, but and I think this goes to highlight very quickly, actually, for, for, for me, that when I speak of moral debt and reparative justice in relation to the past, I don't want this account to be framed as a sort of -0 sum. Dividend or rent extracting initiative that goes along the lines of, you know, descendants of victims of historical injustices, saying, why don't you pay me? Why don't you give us a payout or handout? That's not what I'm advocating here. I don't know. The people of Hong Kong are interested in reparations from Britain. You know, some folks might say, oh, the recent relaxation of immigration rules and visa rules on a part of the UK is a full reparations, and reparative. Just trying to challenge that argument. It's presumably reparative justice needs to deliver substantive dividends for those who receive these benefits. It's unclear to me if the granting and issuing or British, fast track to British citizenship is, in fact, you know, necessarily allied with the interests of most. Although, of course, the small and handful of individuals who see living in Britain as their preferred choices, which I do respect, you know, I suppose the the offering of citizenship, a fast track towards it is a kind of justice do and not entitles. It goes to show that reparative justice not take the form of reparations, right. Which are financial lump sums of compensation paid towards their descendants or other claimants related to the initial victims. Financial compensation is but one, amongst many other forms of settling more that it could be the restitution of stolen property, the apology over and in commemoration of past wrongdoings, a commitment and an actual dedication of resources to opposing future injustices. And of course, yeah, compensation is a part of that equation as well. But ultimately, what undergirds all of these are the second order duties, the second order duties to tackle and also to commit to reforming structures politically and socially, to see to that these a forward discuss responsibilities are better discharged. So no, I don't think right reparative justice need entail reparations full stop. There's more to what I'm advocating here than just reparations. Very fair. And, just to to address this, this this this fast track visa thing that I have a different take off it. And this is just my personal view, and by no means I have researched this. As soon as I heard about it, I think there were there was a political reason. And we are nothing but pawn pawns in this big geopolitical infighting. What I mean by that is that if if I'm Britain and I want to do that, is to show you that how displease the, the citizenry, returning to China and I want to show how many really want to leave and I want to demonstrate airplanes. Loads of people leaving Hong Kong because they don't like this takeover. We we don't like the local laws. They don't like the national security at all. They don't know whatever that may be relevant. But it's a demonstration. They'll say, look, you know, we we're happy to take people because they love freedom, freedom and liberty. And they they're going to come to the United Kingdom. We'll take care of them. That that's one level of discussion. I may be totally wrong. I may be totally wrong, but it's just a bit coincidental, right? Coincidental. I mean, they could have done that before took over. I mean, they could have done it 30 years ago and say anybody who's us about, born in Hong Kong, a natural location to us. All right. Right, right. So, so so I've gone through that. I used to be. I used to carry a passport for British subjects. It's not quite British, but British subject. Right, right, right. British subject only. I still have that. Right. So. Yeah, but you know what I mean. So. So that's one thing. But more interestingly, once you get to England, wherever that may be, Manchester, Liverpool, London, Sussex, wherever that may be, they may still have this three decker bus. It's not like they went to London and and sitting in the upper decker like everybody else, I have the opportunity to do it. So I also push back at the notion that this is a reparative of anything. But as a political, there's a political benefit to those who appears to have largesse to that sort of citizenry. I, I challenge that thought. Naturally. I'm not saying they are not well intentioned. I have no proof it is or it isn't, but it's just another lens of looking at the timing and the actual no change once you get there. I've been there, you've been there. You went to school there longer years than I have. Different generation, different time. But I, I still think that we are still at the three decker bus. And that's precisely the point that you were making. Is, is is there grievances, and that we are not treated, quite the same. But that's, that's a, that's that's a terrible thing. And that's a human thing. You know, if I'm a caveman in cave one, I tend to think my cave is better than your cave. Cave, too, because you have a lot different last name, a different tribe. Well, then, you know, we're not the same. So there's this whole tribal thing that's very human. And I think that that lends itself to to very difficult to turn the corner, but I again, like you said, I digress. Let's let's get back to this moral debt and I hear you loud and clear, what you're saying, the moral debt you are not writing this book to say every once you got $1 million and everything will be fine, and that's fine. That the least of which you're talking about, that is not where you're going. But I would suggest that it's very difficult to find what is the solution. And so I, I was thinking before we got on this call, we all know by now you can look at the rape on Nanking or any of those books that what the atrocities was committed against the Chinese people, especially the non military citizens of of of including your great grandparents and your grandmother, directly or indirectly affected, in, in such a horrible situation, a human experiment, genetic experiment, on and on and on. Would it be okay, if we that one day decide to go do exactly the same thing that they have done to the to the Chinese and do it to the Japanese? That's that I'm being ridiculous. And I'm not suggesting it. Just just a thought experiment instead in any way equalize. Okay. You don't want to pay respect. You don't want to pay anything. Great. I'm not asking for money. Let us do the same thing back to you and we're done. Is that even reasonable? Is that that's the two wrong. Make a right. It's it's any relief valve there and should there even think about the ridiculousness of treating the other party the same way they have treated this? We do not carry out actions even in times of war, such as rape, such as torture of prisoners of war, such as the deployment of chemical and biological agents, or indeed the frivolous detonation of nuclear weapons for the sake of it. We do not do any of this, not because we cannot technically, not because we, wouldn't benefit from it, hypothetically, in terms of winning the war, but because we just do not engage in such fundamentally barbaric practices. And I'm using you not here in a normative sense, lest I be accused of naive it. Of course, I'm not naive to think that people don't do it, but what I'm saying is that we oughtn't do it. And therefore, you know, in virtually of its being wrong. In what sense? I said, do not, but I do not. Here is a normative, you know, term. It is not an expression of prediction or description or empirically is instead a description of what is normatively just and unjust. We must not bring ourselves to the depths and also to the kind of fundamentally debased moral bankruptcy that characterized the actions of those who committed injustices past. And that is not because we are cowards, nor is it because we are wary of the hazards that might come associated with such acts. But because we humans, and as human agents, we must answer for our own actions, whereas answer for the means that we employ to derive particular ends for which were also accountable. And if we choose to turn ourselves into monsters, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for being treated as such and treating you know someone else as if they are monsters, on the other hand, also doesn't mean that we suspend our humanity so we could recognize the wanton palace atrocities and acknowledge that these atrocities rendered the perpetrators monsters without therefore saying, okay, you know what? I'm going to become one myself to tell short, no, I don't think there's a case for us doing whatever. Yeah. If you've watched Dead to Rights and Unit 731. Yeah. You'd realize or looked into the stories, our own stories and tales about unit 731, you'd realize. But this is this is not this is not human. These are the actions of beasts, right? Evil. Evil. Ironically, chances are the evil here is not the sort of intentional, woeful, you know, willful and woeful evil that, say, a premeditated murderer would have. Instead, it's the evil of compliance. It's the evil of unthinking. It's the evil of following orders. It is the evil of being banal, and indeed the banality of evil, so to speak. Yes. Wonderful, wonderful. I'm not suggesting it. I'm just giving you a very I mean, I completely understand where you're coming your way. Oh, I'm trying to. I'm trying to figure out at the end of this conversation or the end of your book, I apologize. I have not had the opportunity to read the book and certainly didn't get to conclusion, and I'm not entirely sure a conclusion can really be reached. It's just a various way of dealing with this injustice, if you would call it that. And I'm putting it lightly, more than injustice, atrocities. It's a lot more than injustice. Just ask the Jewish folks or whomever. So, so the question is, what is deem and the relative word, what is a fair response? Yeah. If you are given the right to say, look, this is what happened between X country and Y country or X culture and Y whatever that may be, colonialism or slavery or what have you. If I'm going to rule the world, assuming you can, this would be three things that I think will begin to resolve any the degree of injustice, the degree of animosity. And that lingers the we can again live peacefully, side by side, as decent human beings that we ought to be. What is that you think, would be, actions or inactions, whatever it is that we should consider, that will get us closer to that utopia. I don't think we'll get there, but we will try to. But what is that? What are those 2 or 3 things you think if there is such thing, that we should be contemplating? Firstly, respect history. Push back against those who seek to erase or rewrite and transform history into basically convenient stories and narratives, whether it be an advocating for justice. Alternatively, an attempt to deny others right to justice. We must not allow history to be contaminated by overt politicization and capture, even though fully objective account of history is not possible. Yes, I grant that, but we can still approximate. That is the first step. Second, recognize that many historical injustices have present day and contemporary victims victims that so exist at present, victims who are still suffering thanks to enduring justice. This was a result of the enduring nature of injustices. And we mustn't, you know, therefore, sweep aside their demands and their needs. And nor should we ignore, of course, the needs of these present generations. But at the same time, what we really need to do beyond just recognizing that these are folks with claims at present, we've got to look at the claims connections with past wrongdoings and try and uncover others who may be more subtly and obliquely impacted by past violations, and yet who are no less entitled to compensation in virtue of the unsettled and yet to be resolved moral debt. So try and identify folks who have these rightful claims and empower them to speak up, not as victims. Again, I'm saying to victims, heirs to victims. But I'm not saying these folks are victims for saying that they are, of course, further violated and abused. But that's a separate matter. We do not frame them as victims. We do not assign to them the sort of castigating or indeed often stigmatized, for it is so, you know, devoid of agency or concept, right? The label of being victims. And that's how I preempt, of course, and also preemptively respond to those who say I'm perpetrating a victim mindset. That's not what I'm advocating. What I'm advocating here, though, is that we enable them to see the connection to historical wrongdoings and then say, look, here's the given facts on the ground. Here are the possible claims you have, and here's how we can try and tackle and also settle the debt that's long overdue to you in a manner that is conducive towards your interests, but also the achieving of overarching, you know, the rightful ordering, the rightful order as things should be. You know, when it comes to, the resolution of more debt. So, in short, that's the second key recommendation I have. And the final recommendation is really just to cultivate a robust civil society fabric and enduring you know, what we call a third sector that straddles or rather, extends beyond the public and private, the third sector of civil society who can hold the fort and resist and push back against future, renditions and future instantiations of injustices. Never again should not be merely a slogan is in fact, be a credible and also reasonable pledge that we as citizens, ordinary folks in the ground, should feel compelled to uphold and also defend accordingly. So these are, I guess, the three key recommendations I have in terms of the implications of the moral death count. Yeah, pretty straightforward. They're not rocket science. And yet, you know, looking at praxis and the implementation of these principles in a pursuit of these objectives, that is something that is going to remain, of course, an open question and also a challenge as we navigate the frothy waters ahead. So sounds like, and again, I want to press on whoever listening that you haven't yet once said is a fiscal or financial compensation. That is not where you don't off to be. That's not to say that it cannot play a part, but that's yeah, it's not. It's never been it doesn't have to be. And it may not be sufficient either. Right, right. So I think it's really important to to get that clear. Because sometimes we use words that sounds like. But I want to make sure it's not misinterpreted. Number two, it's says seems like it's more qualitative, rather than a quantitative discussion. It's, it's really how do you behave towards the victims? What attitude? What practices, that you carry, carry out? It demonstrates, your attitude, towards those who have been harmed or those, inheritors, from those who have been harmed. So we say. And so one thing that we didn't talk about, at least not today, is that this debt can go can be inherited for a long time. In other word, no different than a financial debt or something. Somebody owes something, that moral, debt is no different than financial debt or any other debt is a form of I owe you. I owe you something. And that's something. Doesn't have to be physical cash and have to be monetary. It could simply be a debt of morality or ethics or what have you. And I think that's very interesting and something that I asked you, previously, and I love to hear your thoughts once more, is that as time goes on, if we don't resolve it, it kind of resolves to itself, to some extent, because every generation forgets a little bit, the next generation forgets a little bit more. There is an a ongoing passing on of grievance of the severity or the degree, because history kind of fades. And if that, if that does fade, the third leg of your, of your idea of how do we solve this goes away because what you said was never again. And the way to make sure is never again is to basically say, never forget what happened. Because if you forgot what happened, it could more likely happen again. But if you haven't forgotten about it doesn't mean you carry hatred or carry a burden for the rest of your life or for rest of your generations to come. But to say never forget means I mean never, never allow it to happen again. Also means never forget. Am I interpreting incorrectly or can you share some more of your thoughts on that? Absolutely. I think the key here is that memory is the act of commemoration is as much about redefining and articulating the truth about the past as about enabling the present generations to heal through connecting with the past, and ultimately, and reminding future generations that the perils of the worst excesses and tendencies of humanity here I'm reminded of the film Coco. I actually cite and draw on Coco as an example, you know, in two ways in a book. The first illustrative purposes of Coco Wood film is to highlight the importance of memory. There's a song called Remember Me, you know, in Coco. And by the way, if you haven't watched the Pixar, I think it's a Pixar production. Coco, you reading it? It's tracking. It's incredible. It's incredible. And one way in which I invoked Coco was basically in talking about the the right to be remembered. Right. We have a right to be loved. Maybe we have a right to be respected plausibly. But do we have a right to be to be remembered? And one way of cashing that claim out is to say that being remembered is a very important part of our own core interests, such that even if we're dead and no longer present, the posthumous version of ourselves. So posthumous versions, yes, still be right holders, and they could be holders of rights, including right not to be defamed, right, or the right to be remembered appropriately. But the flip side to and the second question I have is to what extent does, you know, remembering right? Remembering someone and remembering the atrocities? Yeah, that occurred to them. To what extent is that not also a part of reparative justice? Because I think it is right where one of the most denigrating forms of posthumous violations is to have one's reputation slandered, and to have one's life story buried under the weight of countervailing narratives, maybe reverse propaganda. Well, in order to counteract that, in order to repair the wrongdoings done to oneself, to have someone remember and retell your story in full after your death. That, I think, is a form of reparation to. When I wrote this project, I in some ways was also carrying out not so much reparative justice, but, you know, proxy restoration on a part of my family because I wanted to ensure that their full stories are heard, told, and also understood by subsequent generations of folks on the ground that I think so. So remembering is important. Very important. Yeah, but remembering is not equates not moving on. It does not equate with vengeance and hatred. Okay. On what you're remembering as a death and is and is really about how the one generation tells the story to the next and the way they tell it and the and the degree by which to express it. Is it through hatred? Is it through vengeance, or is it through us? This is part of our history and that and that. You need to remember this because we don't ever want that to happen again. Right? That's a very different way than too and, that there are many ways to tell a story, purposefully or otherwise. It carries weight, to how is remembered, and how we form our young minds when we're children, about the future of relationships between those who, victimized and those aggressors, so to, so to speak. Yeah. So, fascinating. Is it, you know, United Nation Charter had talk about this notion of reparative justice, and one of it is, yes. I remember reading it, I'm sure you know, this, is that, you still treat it in the same way by by the aggressors or not? Right. That was there's some perpetuity of the same militia. They didn't use that word. I'm, you know, in the same kind of way. Still treating it. So I'm not going back to colonialism for a moment or slavery or what have you. Has the society, moved on a mature and and really show that we have we are able to to create an environment, justifiable actions. And the type of action that shows repenting is the wrong word. But you understand what I'm saying where there is a definitive change, or not. And apparently that is one of the, one of the kernels, of of of really trying to understand have there been change do you buy into all that? Do you agree, first of all, with what the United Nation talks about in this, in this very thing that you are you have written a book about? I think I certainly think there's a question looming over all of this. Right, Philip, concerning global governance concerning the distribution of resources and access to resources and opportunities on a clearly unlevel, uneven playing field in a world as it is, these are very relevant problems, right when it comes to supply chain disruptions, when it comes to development aid inequalities, when it comes to global capital structures that reinforce and bolster okay, they reify the inequalities between those who have and those who have not. And I think these are all relevant and germane questions that we ought to be worried about, okay, not just in virtue of its being wrong, but also because of the consequences it has on political stability, on geopolitics, on wars, on hatred, on inflamed sort of anguish between different populations. And yet at the same time, we've got to ask ourselves who's to blame and who's to be held responsible for this? Blame is a very specific subset of responsibility. Responsibility at large, though, is a less blame laden concept that is just a parceling out really of of tasks. Right? I'd like to think of responsibility as the assignment of tasks. Okay. So it doesn't have to be based on pure notions of moral liability. It can also be that, you know, one is responsible for fixing a problem that one did not cause. Okay. Or that one is responsible in virtue of one's having the ability to fix a problem. So let's take a step back and not attach ourselves too much to a notion of blame and also the narratives of blame. And let's focus on narratives of responsibility. And here I would say our global state of inequality, both at present and also between the past and present, or rooted in the past in relation to the present, would give rise to responsibility that we need to think carefully about and also substantively about, so to speak, when it comes to redesigning our global institutions and also frameworks of governance impact output. Fascinating. I'm try to end this on a positive note. I'm going to try very positive. I mean, I don't mean you have made it negative. I am saying we go back in history of a thousand years or even longer human and really haven't changed. Yeah, human are human and that I am not I am not a in a in a mindset that believe that atrocity will never happen again as we see atrocities happening today. Yeah. And we're creating more injustices on a daily basis. And so not only we cannot learn from our own, bad behavior, and the consequence of our bad behavior, we certainly cannot learn from other people's suffering from bad behavior. I just think human can't learn in that in that way. I'm not saying we can never learn. We we. That's not our default mode. Asking you a impossible question to answer. So if you say that's a ridiculous question, but I'm going to ask you in the following way, what are those little steps that we can all take to have a better future, that has less opportunity for more atrocities to come? I think, I've gone through some of these steps just and already my friend. But I would say if there's one final message I'd like to leave for all of us. Yeah. Yes. Normalize discussions about historical injustices, normalize and create that for this space for folks to say, here's my experience, here's my understanding, here's what happened to my parents, my grandparents, my great grandparents normalize such discourses such that folks don't feel like, oh, they're going against the grain. Oh, folks don't want to listen to us. Let's just shut up, you know? But instead they think, okay, you know what? There's a space and there's a room for me to actually speak up and speak out about our experiences and also our reflections upon the moral significance of our ancestors, our predecessors experiences that I think is more than sufficient. So thank you. Thank you for that. I mean, not not not not the end goal, but the first step. Yeah. No, there are many, many steps. And I don't know if there if we know the end step. I mean, I don't know, but we do. We need one. We don't we don't need it because the world is evolving. People are evolving. Like I thought, memory fades or memory recall new, new, new experiences. I mean, that's just part of the human condition. And unfortunately, and that, in today's world where we are, splintering from a, a, a more closely connected world to a less closely connected world, when I say that, you know what I'm saying? I think, you know, this globalization is one of those, you know, being to fractures. And there are less and less, agreement on one central way to deal with disputes. One central way where, where people find it, to be fair, a third party to be fair to to to help resolve a past ills to some degree. I mean, nobody can completely wipe out past past sins and things, but at least there's a forum, a platform, that is, waning as well. I don't know if you agree with that. Yeah. So the trend is not going to the direction where, that that we will love to see is quite the opposite is going the other way. Which makes me more concerning, about, the, the reoccurrence of atrocities, reoccurrence of ill, ill, ill actions. And that's why your book, extremely timely. I mean, I'm sure it's always timely because we we have these issues for generations, but even more so to remind us of every action. There's an equal and opposite reaction, that, when, one of the, one of the truism of, of physics, and that what we do now for the short term have significant long term across generational, cross-cultural, consequences that our great grandchildren may end up paying for our short term gains, that we have no concept of thinking about. Absolutely. And it's that level of maturity. It's also about just it could also just be about destruction, right? The argument that, you know, colonialism and historical injustices would necessarily result in gains, you know, assumes that there's a either or trade off, but sometimes it's just wanton destruction. The environment's destroyed whilst resources are extracted with impunity. And the habitats, of course, of the original inhabitants of a certain, rainforests or parts of the rainforest are completely habitats for the animals are destroyed and the houses and the space for living any culturally significant and meaningful roots are rotted and, you know, ultimately uprooted. And yet, who does this benefit? It may only be a handful of folks, if at all. Yes. So it's not a sort of transaction. I want us to move beyond that sort of transaction metaphor. You know, I gain, you lose. What about we I lose to and you lose. Of course we I lose as well. Everyone loses. And most of us just do not have the foresight to see the future. When the future is everything. Everything's holistic, everything and always integrated. Yeah. When we destroy the world and destroy others lives, we are also ruining ourselves. And that very process. Yes, yes, that's the next book. Brian. Hello? Destruction. Mutual destruction. Well, Brian. Bona fide, a real destruction. Thank you so much for your time. I, it's a heavy topic. This is not something we talk about and say. Oh, well, that was great listening to it and move on. We hope that we are able to reflect, on on your research, on your years. Sounds like years of thinking about it. And then finally put your thoughts on paper. So this is not something you suddenly decided to write about. This is very much, seems like part of your DNA, if I may suggest, which is, which is, which is which is deeply personal, friend. Yeah, but you know what I mean? So, so we we we want to learn from it, and, we we don't have to always agree. But it is, is is one, one way of thinking about it, one way to to to cut the pie or however you want to say it. But it reminds us that this is still real and is present and it should be dealt with. This is not something we can sweep it under a rug because it had never worked. Trying to sweep it under the rug, because people have memories and people do remember. And if we want to have a better world, we need to we need to take some actions. Reparative actions, to recognize, the other parties, and and this a greater man. I don't mean menace and female and male, but greater person. To to to be able to to to have that kind of thinking, so that we can all get along better. I know I sound sorry, I sound like a child talking about it, but, but unfortunately, that to me, that's true. So, thank you for writing that book. I know your book is available, I think is Amazon. And anywhere that wonderful books are sold. But I don't want to buy one until I come see you in, in Hong Kong, in January, where I can have your autograph. Absolutely. And so you can sign a book. So. So thank you. Thank you. Brian. And I know you have a heavy, agenda ahead of you and to spend time with us today. Thank you very much. Thank you. You can always find more episodes by visiting Philip child.us/podcast, or find us on your favorite podcast. Now you can always leave us feedback, ask, question, or request a topic for us to discuss by sending an email to p c at Philip Chao dot. U.S views expressed in the Tao Chao podcast are individual opinions, and they do not represent the employees of each guest or the firm. Each guest is associated. Our podcasts are for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be deemed or viewed as investment advice or recommendations. Please consult your personal financial advisor, investment expert or investment fiduciary before taking any actions about your plan and investments. Brian Wong is an assistant professor in philosophy at Hong Kong University. He's a political theorist and geopolitical strategist whose research examines authoritarian regimes and citizens political and moral responsibilities. Colonial and historical injustices, and the interaction between domestic politics and foreign policy of states in East Asia, especially China. Brian is a Hong Kong Rhodes Scholar, 2020. He obtained his doctorate in Philosophy in Politics, Master in Philosophy and Political Theory with distinction, and a master in philosophy, Politics and Economics, First Class, all from the University of Oxford. He co-founded and advises Oxford Political Review, a publication aspiring to bridge the theory and practice gap. Brian coached Eton College's debate program for four years, and was the first ever Hong Kong born Chinese to have advance to the open semifinals of the World Universities Debating Championships in 2020. It was my great pleasure. Here is Brian. So, Brian, thank you and welcome once again. I've enjoyed the last conversation so much that, I been longing for us to spend more time. We are certainly oceans apart. And thank you, for for joining me this morning. And I believe you mentioned that you are in Singapore and not in Hong Kong today. Not tonight. That's for for for for a variety of things. So, Brian, I got the wonderful news that you wrote a new book. I must say that you are so prolific that you are. I think you are writing another book. As far as I can tell. Little, little birds came in and flew by my ears and told me that you're writing another book, and you probably have one more book in your mind that you're ready to to to to write again, I'm sure. So that's that's wonderful. I know it's a lot of efforts, to, to write a book. And how many books have you written so far already? Or at least edited and so on. I know you, you did one on bricks as well. You're very kind. Fill it. Well, I've published, two Chinese compendium of my writing, largely, and also with some interviews conducted in English. But these those book came out in 2021 and 23. So this year I've published my first same year monograph, More Debts Defending a New Kind of Reparative Justice, as well as an edge volume on Bricks and the Future of Bricks. If there is, in fact one, as well as, you know, books due to come out in approximately a month's time or so at the end of October, concerning citizens responsibilities living under authoritarian regimes, which I find very exciting topic to be working on. One of your specialties, I believe. That's right. So that's one of the areas I focus on in my investigation and research. And finally, there's also a book on the ethics of geopolitics of AI. So long story short, but around. Oh. So I will have had, I think, six books by say called Q1 2026. No. Be interesting. What is interesting, if we train AI to think ethically so it can self-control. That would be interesting wouldn't it? Right. But the question is what is ethically mean ethically? For whom? Ethically relative to what? And it's and most importantly we we humans diverge over what ethical entails, right? What being ethical is, what being ethical isn't. We can't agree amongst ourselves. So what can we do? Or what should we do in accounting for such moral divergence and also divergence in the first order and second order beliefs? When training large language models not is an unresolved question that I find fascinating as well. Yes, well. And diversity makes this world more interesting. If we all agree, we'll just go to sleep and there's nothing left to say. I wish there were more folks that agreed with that statement. Especially in your part of the world, my friend these days. Okay, get us to be five US diversity. I think if you look at the animal kingdom, you look at the plants, you look at all that, it is such an important, component of our very humankind and our existence. And. Absolutely. We may not like it with one's or the right to disagree strongly and vehemently with one's rivals, with one's interlocutors. That is, in my view, an innate part of the social experience of humanity to construct a society where dissent and disagreement can run rampant, as opposed to one where, you know only one version of dogmatic truth is promulgated and adopted by all. I, I have learned, over the last I think I met you the beginning this year. Yeah. In January, when I was in Hong Kong. I have learned never debate with you because I will lose, to to the two sides. Basically, I have no need to debate with you because I agree, and I think that, one of the one of the jokes that I have, that's a much better response. And I'm just getting one of I think I would say to myself, as if I wake up every morning and everywhere I go, I meet more. Philip Chao, how boring a life it's going to be. And it is. That exact sentiment is about diversity. Is is really learning and really looking at itself and say we don't know everything. And it is that excitement is to have a different opinion. Yeah, absolutely. But let's not go the intellectual aspect of our discussion quite that quickly. But I, I was really, excited to to see the title of your book, about moral and debt. Moral has to do with morality. That is something owed to somebody else. And the combination of the two got me very much interested in learning. And I must say, I have cheated in two ways. One is I have spoken with you, prior to today, a little bit, so I know a little bit more. And I have also cheated because I watched you, yesterday on, a, on Rhodes, Trust podcast, which gave away a lot of it. But, I like to have the, personal privilege, which you afforded me, to ask the question for, for for people who are going to watch this particular, podcast. So thank you. First of all, Brian, for for your generosity of time, I know you're very, very busy person and much on demand. More importantly is, I think, to understand, what drove you, that the topic itself is fascinating, but what drove you to compel to express your your thinking and your philosophy? I know some of it is personal, some of it just something that you have thought a great deal, I'm sure about. Could you enlighten the, all of us on on your motivation, and directionality of your writing? Well, thanks, Phillip. And perhaps he to be useful to, you know, share a personal story, and then maybe move on to explaining why academic interest and subject matter as well. My grandmother was born in Hong Kong, pre-World War two Hong Kong into a relatively comfortable upper middle class family. Her parents, well, her dad went to university. Her mum was also well-educated for a time, and both spoke to varying degrees in English. And it was a pretty wholesome family life, where they would live in the the West Mid-Levels were actually more precisely a stretch of land between, back then, the this, the, the equivalent of the dockyards in Shanghai on and so on. And of course, the, the quote unquote mid-levels where mid-levels and above where you know, non-Chinese only. So why only more specifically? And that was why they were situated, you know, in this nice flat that's right around the corner when it came to Stanley Street, you know, along basically the Pottinger Street stretch or in Cantonese, we call that section guy. And my grandmother was raised, yeah, for a young age, being told that she could go to. And she would go to school and get married into a comfortable family and have lots of, you know, children and prosper and all that. And yet, of course, the invasion of Hong Kong in 1941 as a part of the, Japanese invasion of China by an atrocious, deeply dreadful campaign that left millions either killed or severely injured or abused or tortured or imprisoned in China. And in the context of Hong Kong, that was the battle for Hong Kong, which lasted for under a month's time, coming in the fall of Hong Kong in hands or into the hands of the Japanese. By the end of 1941, with the surrender of, or the surrendering of the colonial governor, Mark young. And so my grandmother's died, my great grandfather was taken captive and sent to Hainan to work as a grunt and as someone who never done, really, a single day of real labor in his life. He he died. And my grandmother's mother was so distraught that she ended up crying herself to blindness, and she had to give away my grandmother for adoption by a neighboring neighbor, a couple in central, who then fled back into new territories and then eventually, sort of the deep hinterlands of canton, so to speak, subsequently bringing my grandmother with them. So that was really what sparked my fascination with historical injustice, the personal connection between my grandmother and he, atrocities of war and the devastating impacts that war left not just on his her parents, but also on herself, restoring memories that meant that she would be traumatized for the remainder of her life. Despite her resilience and also eventual magnanimity over the past wrongdoings inflicted upon her family. And then, of course, you know, after the war, my grandmother got married and, so my, my father and my aunt were born, you know, into the generation, a generation that you could consider rather privileged in a sense that that was an era where, you know, hard work did pay off and hard work did generate its dividends. But they were also fairly underprivileged in a very substantive and acute sense, where they were quite literally, you know, not necessarily living in rags per se, but certainly living very modest, very modest and thrifty lives as well, as children of a working class family. Right. Which is where my grandmother ended up, seeing as basically half of the family was either decimated or lost their belongings and property during the war. And by the way, mind you, she came from a very large family. Right? When? Over 14, I think it was 15. So uncles and two grandmothers and a grandfather. So she came from a very large and, you know, certainly upper middle class family. Not not sort of, a struggling family per se, but it didn't matter because the war basically took, you know, a vast majority of the wealth. And she was left, you know, navigating a very frightening and new order in the wake of the invasion. So long story short, in the second half of the 20th century, Hong Kong's economy took off. And many folks who attribute that to British colonial policies. But are it be, proactive, not interventionism, which came in much later than folks actually suspect or thought it did. You know, again, there's a mandela effect there, or more fundamentally, an immediate two decades postwar reconstruction attempting to build the base for industrialization establishments. You know, later on in that process of the ICAC reining in corruption, I'm sure you recall that, Philip, when you were much younger and traveling through Hong Kong, were living in Hong Kong. Corruption ran rampant. Whereas, you know, the the institutionalization of anti-corruption enforcement under, again, in an immaculate house basically saw to an end, of a lot of this sort of, you know, walked practices and frankly, the the denigration to the rule of law. I mean, the rule of law was constructed through a mixture of colonial administration intervention, but also the ingenious ness of the Hong Kong people, which then gave rise to the robust rule of law for which Hong Kong has been known for many decades and years as well. So obviously the colonial era left in its wake benefits, right? Especially in the last 50 years or so. And yet, let's not gloss over the facts of racism, hierarchies, of subjugation, of discrimination, assertions that for a very long while, folks like you and I, because of our skin color, we were not allowed to live in the peak or live atop the peak, and in the mid levels. We were not allowed to own houses there or to live like, affluent upper classmen, or there would always be, you know, and here I'm paraphrasing a brilliant analogy that was introduced by David Van Wray Brooke in rather, Lucy about God in an Asian colonial and post-colonial history and the struggle and what he termed to be basically a sort of multi deck or, you know, a multi deck ship, a cruise ship of sorts. We have three decks, you know, the first class deck, the second class deck and the third class and that they the Koch equivalent. And to speak of that, of that liner. Right. And he basically said, you know, that that the colonial period in Indonesia saw a hierarchy where you'd have the whites at the top, the mixed folks in the middle, and then the natives at the bottom, apart from, of course, the select segment who collaborate with the whites. And then then it promoted into the second sort of deck, right, so to speak. And yet, you know, upon the the transformation, okay, that took to in in Asia during World War two, what we then saw swiftly was a reversal of positionality is where you had the Japanese and Japanese cronies and collaborators at the top, followed by the quote unquote, the locals, and finally the white Caucasian. So the reversal of positionality in that case speaks to, you know, the delicate ness of status under colonial and also occupation regimes. And the same could be said to some extent of Hong Kong that there was really a sense of rigidity and socioeconomic distributions and class distributions all the way up until perhaps the last two decades of British colonial rule. And yet grappling with this question of whether or not the rule was justified and justified, right or wrong, you know, these questions intrigued me as well, because on one hand, you could point to Hong Kong's purportedly benefiting, or at least significant portions of Hong Kong's population benefiting from colonialism in the second half of the 20th century. And you know, your other hand, how are we to reconcile that? I would have thought that colonialism was built on the back of exploitation, of unjust acquisition, of unjust, unequal treaties that the Chinese were compelled to sign. So this was another reason why I found moral debt, the concept of moral debt. So fascinating to explore and investigate, for. We often hear folks say, hey, you owe me something. You know, in Cantonese we say, this morning or Yan Tang tired, right? So there's a little human, sentiment or human debt that you accrue towards me. And that's a literal translation that how can we interpret it through lenses of rigorous political theorization? That was a question I was intrigued by. And I also explained why I was drawn to as a political theorist by training as a philosopher, by training, as well the subject matter at hand. I'm sorry that took so long, but I hope that really gave us a good glimpse into the the context and the motivation for the book. So what is fascinating about this, story, unfortunately, is not unique. Unfortunately, that there are worse than that and there are better than that, but they are all around. It's just a matter of a one standard deviation away from from your grandmother and your great grandparents, experience. And what is interesting is the intersection between, colonialism and aggression from a foreign nation. Those two both have moral debt, and we blend them together. One goes to the other. And also fascinating. As I look back and, on Chinese, at least contemporary Chinese has in the last hundred years or so, we think of Chinese really, values. So much of stability values, so much of making sure, that we don't have a whole loon. Loon is chaotic. You know, we we we hate chaos, right? We want peace because of this recent 2 or 300 years of experience that traumatized, shall we say, the entire population and its culture. I think it has moved, in an irreversible way for as long as our memory, has until passed on, about how Chinese feels about lives, and, and what they are seeking and what they are willing to give up for stability, what they are willing to give up for peacefulness. And so it's fascinating. I don't know if you subscribe to that or not, that sometimes Chinese people think, well, China, you know, this end of history discussion. Well, China, if they get prosperous, they will become more democratic. They are not really looking for democracy in that traditional sense. They are looking for just leave us alone. Just let us be peaceful and live our lives almost that without them saying it. Maybe I'm overemphasizing it, but there's this feeling, by by the Chinese, in the Chinese culture today is we're willing to, to, to to give up certain things for that tranquility. I think that's an interesting take. Although I would again be cautious of over generalizing about the Chinese population. There are folks in the ethnic Chinese community who see as desirable, not just instrumentally, but also intrinsically, that there's a greater degree of political liberalization, of democratic checks and balances and of transparency and governance that may resemble the sort of ideal type that the West used to stand for. Although, on the other hand, you know, there's folks who say, well, look, you know, governance is ultimately what we want. Good governance, that is, democracy is a means to an end. We don't have to be democratic, but we have to have good governance institutions, of course, cultural rituals and and also frameworks. Right. And but we often see in the Western discourses about China as the assertion that the purported lack of democracy would, in turn, purportedly entail terrible governance. Now, not something I find empirically questionable. I mean, just look at what's been accomplished in China over the past many decades, but it also unduly reduces the conversation as to the kinds of reforms and changes that China still need to undertake, too. Just democracy alone, frankly. You know, I think, China, for it to politically evolve and grow requires more than just an enshrinement of checks and balances across all levels of government, which do matter, which does matter rather, but also at the same time, an acknowledgment of, you know, China's becoming an increasingly global and international power. And yet, the way many of its officials and bureaucrats engaged in the world communicate with the world still reflects a deeply seated sort of sense of risk aversion and also inertia. How can we ensure that China actually speaks to the world, listens to the world, and becomes an important leading player in the world? Because I think, you know, despite all its hard technological advances and successes or its impressive achievements in poverty alleviation, China is not seen quite just yet, even by countries that does a lot of business with and invest heavily in, and provides developmental aid towards. It's not seen as a player who is credible and also reliable as a pillar of global governance. So let's see what China's going to do. Anyway, I digress, but I just thought I'd share that musing and say I thought, well, one day I would like to actually have, I just don't necessarily think we should say things like, the Chinese just want to stability. I mean, yes, no, no, no, you know, hanging fruit. But it's not all there is to the Chinese like. No, no, of course, of course, no, no, I agree, I think generalization always dangerous. But there is a feeling of peace. And, you know, we're done with 100 years of that or we're done with a 200 years of that. We we just want to be, you know, tranquil, peaceful, non chaotic, let us live our lives. Were willing to sacrifice some liberty, for that guarantee if it is doable. The promise, of stability. That is really what I'm thinking about. Yeah. And we can overplay that. Of course. And also you were talking about, and we'll exit that because that's not the topic of the day, but we certainly, thinking about they are not mutually exclusive. And the way the West looks at, the of this or that, and you cannot be both and, and I think China is a bit of both sometimes and it's difficult to Right. It's a, it's a spectrum is a dial is not an on off switch. Shall we say, you're much more eloquent in that area because you've spent a lot of time in, in really looking at, China and the world, and the BRICs and so on and so forth. So but that's another conversation for another day. And I would love to actually you on expert in, thinking about the position of Hong Kong in the world and how it, it is really a, you know, I have significant loyalty to Hong Kong because I was born there in the sense that, very proud to be a Hong Kong or, by birth, and the resilience, of the Hong Kong people and you see all the ebb and flows and able to keep coming back over and over and over. This speaks volumes, about about something about Hong Kong, which I try certainly don't talk about, but and I think this goes to highlight very quickly, actually for, for, for me that when I speak of moral debt and reparative justice in relation to the past, I don't want this account to be framed as a sort of negative, zero sum, dividend or rent extracting initiative that goes along the lines of, you know, descendants of victims of historical injustices, saying, why don't you pay me? Why don't you give us a payout or handout? That's not what I'm advocating here. I don't know. The people of Hong Kong are interested in reparations from Britain. You know, some folks might say, oh, the recent relaxation of immigration rules and visa rules on a part of the UK is a for reparations, and reparative. Just trying to challenge that argument. It's presumably reparative justice needs to deliver substantive dividends for those who receive these benefits. It's unclear to me of the granting and issuing or British, fast track to British citizenship. Is is, in fact, you know, necessarily aligned with the interests of most. Although, of course, the small and handful of individuals who see living in Britain as their preferred choices, which I do respect, you know, I suppose the the offering of citizenship, a fast track towards it, is a kind of justice to and not entitles. It goes to show that reparative justice not take the form of reparations, right. Which are financial lump sums of compensation paid towards their descendants or other claimants related to the initial victims. Financial compensation is but one, amongst many other forms of settling more that it could be the restitution of stolen property. The apology over and in commemoration of past wrongdoings, a commitment and an actual dedication of resources to opposing future injustices. And of course, yeah, compensation is a part of that equation. As well. But ultimately, what undergirds all of these are the second order duties, the second order duties to tackle and also to commit to reforming structures politically and socially, to see to that these a four discuss responsibilities are better discharged. So no, I don't think right reparative justice need entail reparations full stop. There's more to what I'm advocating here than just reparation. Very fair. And, just to to address this, this, this, this fast track visa thing that I have a different take off it. And this is just my personal view and by no means I have researched this. As soon as I heard about it, I think there were there was a political reason. And we are nothing but pawn pawns in this epic geopolitical infighting. What I mean by that is that if if I'm Britain and I want to do that, is to show you that how displeased the, the citizenry of returning to China. And I want to show how many really want to leave, and I want to demonstrate airplanes, loads of people leaving Hong Kong because they don't like this takeover. But we don't like the local laws. They don't like that national security at all. They don't know whatever that may be relevant. But it's a demonstration of saying, hey, look, you know, we we're happy to take people because they love freedom, freedom and liberty. And they, they're going to come to the United Kingdom. We'll take care of them. That's that's one level of discussion. I may be totally wrong. I may be totally wrong, but it's just a bit coincidental, right? Coincidental. I mean, they could have done that before took over. I mean, they could have done it 30 years ago and say, anybody who's U.S., I mean, born in Hong Kong, a natural to us. All right. Right, right. So, so so I've gone through that. I used to be. I used to carry a passport for British subjects. It's not quite British, but British subject. Right, right, right. British subject only. I still have that. Right. So. Yeah, but you know what I mean. So. So that's one thing. But more interestingly, once you get to England, wherever that may be Manchester, Liverpool, London, Sussex, wherever that may be, they may still have this three decker bus. It's not like they went to London and and sit in the upper deck. Or like everybody else, I have the opportunity to do it. So I also push back at the notion that this is a reparative of anything. But as a political, there's a political benefit to those who appear to have largesse to that sort of citizenry. I challenged that thought naturally. I'm not saying they are not well intentioned. I have no proof it is or it isn't, but it's just another lens of looking at the timing and the actual no change once you get there. I've been there, you've been there. You went to school there longer years than I have. Different generation, different time. But I, I still think that we are still at a three decker bus. And that's precisely the point that you are making. Is is is there grievances, and that we are not treated, quite the same. But that's, that's a, that's a, that's a tribal thing. And that's a human thing. You know, if I'm a caveman in cave one, I tend to think my cave is better than your cave. Cave two because you. I have a lot different last name, a different tribe. Well, then, you know, we're not the same. So there's this whole tribal thing that's very human. And I think that that lends itself to, to to very difficult to turn the corner. But I again, like you said, I digress. Let's let's get back to this moral debt and I hear you loud and clear, what you are saying, the moral debt you are not writing this book to say every once you got $1 million and everything will be fine. And that's like that, the least of which you are talking about, that is not where you are going. But I would suggest that it's very difficult to find what is the solution. And so I, I was thinking before we got on this call, we all know by now you can look at the Rape of Man King or any of those books that what the atrocities was committed against the Chinese people, especially the non military citizens of of of including your great grandparents and your grandmother, directly or indirectly affected, in, in such a horrible situation, a human experiment, genetic experiment. On and on and on. Would it be okay, if we that one day decide to go do exactly the same thing that you have done to the to the Chinese and do it to the Japanese? That's that I'm being ridiculous. And I'm not suggesting it. Just just a thought experiment instead in any way equalize. Okay. You don't want to pay respect. You don't want to pay anything. Great. I'm not asking for money. Let us do the same thing back to you and we're done. It's not even reasonable. Is that that's the two wrong. Make a right. It's a it's any relief valve there. And should there even think about the ridiculousness of treating the other party the same way they have treated this? We do not carry out actions even in times of war, such as rape, such as torture of prisoners of war, such as the deployment of chemical and biological agents, or indeed the frivolous detonation of nuclear weapons for the sake of it. We do not do any of this, not because we cannot technically, not because we, wouldn't benefit from it, hypothetically, in terms of winning the war, but because we just do not engage in such fundamentally barbaric practices. And I'm using you not here in a normative sense. Should I be accused of naive it? Of course, I'm not naive to think that people don't do it, but what I'm saying is that we oughtn't do it. And therefore, you know, in virtue of its being wrong and ought sense. I said, do not, but I do not. Here is a normative, you know, term. It is not an expression of prediction or description, or empirically is instead a description of what is normatively just and unjust. We must not bring ourselves to the depths, and also to the kind of fundamentally debased moral bankruptcy that characterized the actions of those who committed injustices past. And that is not because we are cowards, nor is it because we are wary of the hazards that might come associated with such acts. But because we humans, and as human agents, we must answer for our own actions, whereas answer for the means that we employ to derive particular ends for which were also accountable and if we choose to turn ourselves into monsters, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for being featured as such and treating you know someone else as if they are monsters. On the other hand, also doesn't mean that we suspend our humanity so we can recognize the wanton palace atrocities and acknowledge that these atrocities rendered the perpetrators monsters without therefore saying, okay, you know what? I am going to become one myself to stand short. No, I don't think there's a case for us doing whatever. Yeah. If you've watched Dead to Rights and Unit 731, yeah. You'd realize or looked into the stories, our own stories and tales about unit 731, you'd realize, gosh, this is this is not this is not human. These are the actions of beasts, right? Evil. Evil two. Ironically, chances are the evil here is not the sort of intentional, woeful, you know, willful and woeful evil that, say, a premeditated murderer would have. Instead, it's the evil of compliance. It's the evil of unthinking. It's the evil of following orders. It is the evil of being banal, and indeed a banality of evil, so to speak. Yes, wonderful, wonderful. I'm not suggesting it. I'm just giving you a I mean, I completely understand where I'm coming from. You know what I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out at the end of this conversation or the end of your book, I apologize. I have not had the opportunity to read the book and certainly didn't get to the conclusion, and I'm not entirely sure a conclusion can really be reached. It's just a various way of dealing with this injustice, if you would call it that. And I'm putting it lightly more than in Justin atrocities. It's a lot more than injustice. Just it that the Jewish folks or whomever. So, so the question is, what is deem and the relative word? What is a fair response? Yeah. If you are given the right to say, look, this is what happened between X country and Y country or X culture and Y whatever that may be, colonialism or slavery or what have you. If I'm going to rule the world, assuming you can, this would be three things that I think will begin to resolve any the degree of injustice, the degree of animosity. And that lingers the we can again live peacefully, side by side as decent human beings that we ought to be. What is that you think, would be, actions or inactions, whatever it is that we should consider, that would get us closer to that utopia. I don't think we'll get there, but we will try to. But what is that? What are those 2 or 3 things? You think if there is such thing, that we should be contemplating? Firstly, respect history. Push back against those who seek to erase or rewrite and transform history and to basically convenient stories and narratives, whether it be an advocating for justice. Alternatively, an attempt to deny others right to justice. We must not allow history to be contaminated by overt politicization and capture, even though fully objective account of history is not possible. Yes, I grant that, but we can still approximate. That is the first step. Second, recognize that many historical injustices have present day and contemporary victims victims that so exist at present. Victims were so suffering thanks to enduring justice. This was a result of the enduring nature of injustices. And we mustn't, you know, therefore sweep aside their demands and their needs. And nor should we ignore, of course, the needs of these present generations. But at the same time, what we really need to do beyond just recognizing that these are folks with claims at present, we've got to look at the claims connections with past wrongdoings and try and uncover others who may be more subtly and obliquely impacted by past violations and yet to, no less entitled to compensation in virtue of the unsettled and yet to be resolved moral debt. So try and identify folks who have these rightful claims and empower them to speak up, not as victims. Again, I'm saying descendants of victims, heirs to victims. But I'm not saying these folks are victims. Were saying that they're, of course, further violated and abused. But that's a separate matter. We do not frame them as victims. We do not assign to them the sort of castigating or indeed often stigmatized, for it is so, you know, devoid of agency, a concept. Right? The label of being victims. And that's how I preempt of course, and also preemptively respond to those who say I'm perpetrating a victim mindset. That's not what I'm advocating. What I'm advocating here, though, is that we enable them to see the connection to historical wrongdoings and then say, look, here's the given facts on the ground. Here are the possible claims you have, and here's how we can try and tackle and also settle the debt that's long overdue to you in a manner that is conducive towards your interests, but also the achieving of overarching, you know, the rightful ordering, the rightful order as things should be. You know, when it comes to, the resolution of more debt. So, in short, that's the second key recommendation. I have. And the final recommendation is really just to cultivate a robust civil society fabric and enduring, you know, what we call third sector that straddles or rather, extends beyond the public into private the third sector of civil society who can hold default and resist and push back against future, renditions and future instantiations of injustices. Never again should not be merely a slogan is in fact, be a credible and also reasonable pledge that we as citizens, ordinary folks in the ground, should feel compelled to uphold and also defend accordingly. So these are, I guess, the three key recommendations I have in terms of the implications of the moral death count. Yeah. Pretty straightforward. They're not rocket science. And yet, you know, looking at praxis and the implementation of these principles in a pursuit of these objectives, that is something that is going to remain, of course, an open question and also a challenge as we navigate the frothy waters ahead. So sounds like and again, I want to press on whoever listening that you haven't and yet once said is a fiscal or financial compensation. That is not where you live off debate. That's not to say that it cannot play a part, but that's yeah, it's not. It's never been it doesn't have to be. And it may not be sufficient either. Right, right. So I think it's really important to, to to get that clear, because sometimes we use words that sounds like. But I want to make sure it's not misinterpreted. Number two, it's a seems like it's more qualitative, rather than a quantitative discussion. It's it's really how do you behave towards the victims? What attitude? What practices, that you carry, carry out? It demonstrates, your attitude, towards those who have been harmed or those, inheritors, from those who have been harmed. So we say. And so one thing that we didn't talk about, at least not today, is that this debt can go can be inherited for a long time. In other word, no different than a financial debt or something. Somebody owes something, that moral, debt is no different than financial debt or any other debt is a form of I owe you. I owe you something. And that's something. Doesn't have to be physical. Cash doesn't have to be monetary. It could simply be a debt of morality or ethics or what have you. And I think that's very interesting and something that I asked you, previously, and I love to hear your thoughts once more is that as time goes on, if we don't resolve it, it kind of resolves the itself to some extent, because every generation forgets a little bit, the next generation forgets a little bit more. There isn't a ongoing passing on of grievance of the severity or the degree, because history kind of fades. And if that, if that does fade, the third leg of your, of your idea of how do we solve this goes away because what you said was never again. And the way to make sure is never again is to basically say, never forget what happened. Because if you forgot what happened, it could more likely happen again. But if you haven't forgotten about it doesn't mean you carry hatred or carry a burden for the rest of your life, or for rest of your generations to come. But to say never forget it means I mean never, never allow it to happen again. Also means never forget. Am I interpreting incorrectly or can you share some more of your thoughts on that? Absolutely. I think the key here is that memory is the act of commemoration is as much about redefining and reactivating the truth about the past as about enabling the present generations to heal through connecting with the past, and ultimately and reminding future generations that the perils of the worst excesses and tendencies of humanity. Here I'm reminded of the film Coco. I actually cite and draw on Coco as an example, you know, in two ways in a book. The first illustrative purposes of Coco and film is to highlight the importance of memory. There's a song called Remember Me, you know, in Coco. And by the way, if you haven't watched the Pixar, I think it's a Pixar production. Coco, you really have to watch it. It's tearjerking. It's incredible. It's incredible. And one way in which I invoked Coco was basically in talking about the right to be remembered. Right. We have a right to be loved. Maybe we have a right to be respected plausibly, but do we have a right to be remembered? And one way of cashing that claim out is to say that being remembered is a very important part of our own core interests, such that even if we're dead and no longer present, the posthumous version of ourselves. So posthumous versions, yes, still be right holders, and they could be holders of rights, including the right not to be defamed, right, or the right to be remembered appropriately. But the flip side to and the second question I have is to what extent does, you know, remembering right? Remembering someone and remembering the atrocities? Yeah, that occurred to them. To what extent is that not also a part of reparative justice? Because I think it is right where one of the most denigrating forms of post posthumous violations is to have one's reputation slandered, and to have one's life story buried under the weight of countervailing narratives, maybe reverse propaganda. Well, in order to counteract that, in order to repair the wrongdoings done to oneself, to have someone remember and retell your story in full after your death. That, I think, is a form of reparation too. When I wrote this project, I in some ways was also carrying out not so much reparative justice. But, you know, proxy restoration on a part of my family is I wanted to ensure that their full stories are heard, told and also understood by subsequent generations of folks on the ground. Now that's interesting. So so remembering is important. Very important. Yeah. But remembering is not equates not moving on. It does not equate with vengeance and hatred. Okay. On what you're remembering as a death and is and is really about how the one generation tells the story to the next and the way they tell it and the and the degree by which to express it. Is it through hatred? Is it through vengeance, or is it through to us? This is part of our history and that and that. You need to remember this because we don't ever want that to happen again. Right? That's a very different way than too. And, there are many ways to tell a story. Purposefully or otherwise. It carries weight, to how it's remembered, and how we form our young minds when we're children. About the future of relationships, between those who, victimized and those aggressors. So. So to speak. Yeah. So, fascinating. It's, you know, United Nation Charter had talk about this notion of it reparative justice. And one of it is, yes. I remember reading it, I'm sure you know this, is that, you still treat it in the same way by by the aggressors or not? Right. That was there's some perpetuity of the same militia. They didn't use that word, you know, in the same kind of way. Still treating you. So I'm going back to colonialism for a moment, or slavery or what have you. Has the society, moved on a mature and and and really show that we have we are able to, to create an environment, justifiable actions. And the type of action that shows repenting is the wrong word. But you understand what I'm saying where there is a definitive change, or not. And apparently that is one of the, one of the kernels, of of a really trying to understand have there been change? Do you buy into all that? Did you agree, first of all, with what the United Nation talks about in this in this very thing that you are you have written a book about? I think I certainly think there's a question looming over all of this. Right, Philip, concerning global governance, concerning the distribution of resources and access to resources and opportunities on a clearly unlevel, uneven playing field in a world as it is, these are very relevant problems, right when it comes to supply chain disruptions, when it comes to development aid inequalities, when it comes to global capital structures that reinforce and bolster okay, they reify the inequalities between those who have and those who have not. And I think these are all relevant and germane questions that we ought to be worried about, okay, not just in virtue of its being wrong, but also because of the consequences it has on political stability, on geopolitics, on wars, on hatred, on inflamed sort of anguish between different populations. And yet at the same time, we've got to ask ourselves who's to blame and who's to be held responsible for this? Blame is a very specific subset of responsibility. Responsibility at large, though, is a less blame laden concept that is just a parceling out really, of of tasks I'd like to think of responsibility is the assignment of tasks. Okay. So it doesn't have to be based on pure notions of moral liability. It can also be that, you know, one is responsible for fixing a problem that one do not cause. Okay. Or that one is responsible in virtue of one's having the ability to fix a problem. So let's take a step back and not attach ourselves too much. The notion of blame and also the narratives of blame. And let's focus on narratives of responsibility. And here I would say our global state of inequality, both at present and also between the past and present, or rooted in the past, in relation to the present, would give rise to responsibility that we need to think carefully about and also substantively about, so to speak, when it comes to redesigning our global institutions and also frameworks of governance impact output. Fascinating. I'm try to end this on a positive note. I'm going to try very positive. I don't mean you have made a negative. I am saying we go back in history of a thousand years or even longer. Human really haven't changed. Yeah, human are human. And that I am not. I am not in a in a mindset that believes that atrocity will never happen again as we see atrocities happening today. Yeah. And we're creating more injustices on a daily basis. And so not only we cannot learn from our own, bad behavior, and the consequence of our bad behavior, we certainly cannot learn from other people's suffering from bad behavior. I just think human can't learn in that in that way. I'm not saying we can never learn. We we. That's not our default mode. Asking you a impossible question to answer. So if you say that's a ridiculous question, but I'm going to ask you in the following way, what are those little steps that we can all take to have a better future that has less opportunity for more atrocities to come? I think I've gone through some of these steps just and already, my friend, but I would say if there's one final message I'd like to leave for all of us here. Yes, normalize discussions about historical injustices, normalize and create. Therefore, this space for folks to say, here's my experience, here's my understanding, here's what happened to my parents, my grandparents, my great grandparents normalize such discourses such that folks don't feel like, oh, they're going against a grain. Oh, folks don't want to listen to us. Let's just shut up, you know? But instead they think, okay, you know what? There's a space and there's a room for me to actually speak up and speak out about our experiences and also our reflections upon the moral significance of our ancestors, our predecessors experiences that I think is more than sufficient. So thank you. Thank you for that comment. Not not not not the end goal, but the first step. I know there are many, many steps and I don't know if there if we know the end step. I mean, I don't know, but even so do we need one? We don't we don't need it because the world is evolving. People are evolving. Like I thought, memory fades or memory recall new, new, new experiences. I mean, that's just part of the human condition. And unfortunately, and that, in today's world where we, splintering from a, a, a more closely connected world to a less closely connected world, when I say that, you know what I'm saying? I think, you know, this globalization is one of those, you know, venture fractures. And there are less and less, agreement on one central way to deal with disputes. So one central way where, where people find it, to be fair, a third party to be fair to, to to help resolve a past ills, to some degree. I mean, nobody can completely wipe out past past sins and things, but at least there's a forum, a platform, that is, waning as well. I don't know if you agree with that. Yeah. So the trend is not going to the direction where, that that we will love to see is quite the opposite is going the other way. Which makes me more concerning, about, the, the reoccurrence of atrocities, reoccurrence of ill, ill, ill actions. And that's why your book, is extremely timely. I mean, I'm sure it's always timely because we we have these issues for generations, but even more so to remind us of every action. There's an equal and opposite reaction. That one, one of the one of the truism of, of physics, and that what we do now for the short term have significant long term, cross-generational, cross-cultural, consequences that our great grandchildren may end up paying for our short term gains that we have no concept of thinking about. Absolutely. And it's that level of maturity. It's also about just it could also just be about destruction, right? The argument that, you know, colonialism and historical injustices would necessarily result in gates, you know, assumes that there's a either or trade off, but sometimes it's just wanton destruction. The environment's destroyed whilst resources extract with impunity. And the habitats, of course, of the original inhabitants of a certain, rainforest or parts of rainforest are completely habitats for the animals are destroyed and the houses and the space for living any culturally significant and meaningful roots are rotted and, you know, ultimately uprooted. And yet, who does this benefit? It may only be a handful of folks, if at all. Yeah. So it's not a sort of transaction. I want us to move beyond that sort of transaction of metaphor. Yeah, I gain, you lose. What about we I lose to and you lose. Of course we I lose as well. Everyone lose. It's most of us just do not have the foresight to see the future. When the future is clear, everything's holistic, everything and always integrated. Yeah. When we destroy the world and destroy others lives, we are also ruining ourselves in that very process. Yes, yes, that's the next book. Brian. Hello? Destruction. Mutual destruction. Well, Brian. Bona fide, a real destruction. Thank you so much for your time. I, it's a heavy topic. This is not something we talk about and say. Oh, well, that was great listening to it and move on. We hope that we are able to reflect, on on your research, on your years. Sounds like years of thinking about it. And then finally put your thoughts on paper. So this is not something you suddenly decided to write about. This is very much, seems like part of your DNA, if I may suggest, which is, which is, which is which is deeply personal, right. Yeah. But you know what I mean. So, so we we we want to learn from it, and, we we don't have to always agree. But it is, is is one, one way of thinking about it, one way to to to cut the pie or however you want to say it. But it reminds us that this is still real and is present and it should be dealt with. This is not something we can sweep it under a rug because it had never worked. Trying to sweep it under the rug, because people have memories and people do remember. And if we want to have a better world, we need to. We need to take some actions. Reparative actions, to recognize, the other parties, and and this a greater man or. I don't mean menace and female and male, but greater person. To to to be able to to to have that kind of thinking, so that we can all get along better. I know I sound sorry, I sound like a child talking about it, but, but unfortunately, that to me, that's true. So, thank you for writing that book. I know your book is available, I think is Amazon and anywhere that wonderful books are sold. But I don't want to buy one until I come see you in, in Hong Kong, in January, where I can have your autograph. Absolutely. And so you can sign a book. So. So thank you. Thank you. Brian. And I know you have a heavy, agenda ahead of you and to spend time with us today. Thank you very much. Thank you.
